Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (7712)	10/4/1998 4:44:00 PM
From: jimpit	Respond to of 13994

Yes !!! Excellent response, Zoltan! Thanks.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (7712)	10/4/1998 5:21:00 PM
From: halfscot	Respond to of 13994

Thak you for a beautiful and eloquent response. halfscot

To: Zoltan! who wrote (7712)	10/4/1998 6:12:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Zoltan, didn't you change your name from what you originally used on SI? In any case, no I'm not a lawyer, I made that decision after seeing how grandiose many lawyers think of themselves and how little they do while capitalizing on people's problems. To your reply, I will continue to side with being naive and ".. think that Clinton has not engaged in a protracted assault on the system of justice," as you put it. He has done no more than what most well trained attorneys do every day in defence of their client's or their own positions. If he weren't able to use the system to defend himself against the system being used to politically attack him (as you concur, you ".. never said that the Republicans weren't using the system of justice, that's absurd), he shouldn't be president in the first place. Your next pearl of wisdom.. "Clinton is now left with basically the OJ defense, a call to the rabble and jury nullification," clearly shows you're lack of belief in the system of justice we have, which you double talk to use to attack the President. Rable indeed.. so you don't have faith in the common man or the will of the people! Too bad. I personally would rather have a few OJ's go free than a thousand innocents go to jail. Juries and the occasional injustice, are the system we have agreed to despite your protests. I'm surprized that you would use such a snobbish, class derogartory term as rable. Shame on you. Next, you're so quick to pontificate on what you didn't read accurately. I said ".. that was one of the intentions of the founding fathers... to allow and promote a continuing argument and struggle to determine what justice should be over time (because justice is not and never will be a fixed and absolute set of conditions)." I didn't say anything about judicial review of congress, but lets go there since you brought it up. You do seem to grasp Marbury v. Madison as establishing the Supreme Courts' authority to vote acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceed the powers granted in the Constitution... which (thank you) confirms my earlier statement which you argued against that the Supreme Court has established itself as the interpreter of the Constitution. The independent council statute doesn't stand on its own two feet, regardless of which party is promoting it, hopefully it will be voted down on renewal. Your arguments that if Democrats can use it so can Republicans, or that its good because there's a weak Attorney General is just politics as usual and doesn't rise to the question of if it belongs in our system at all. Its a political gun, defended by whoever feels they have their hand on the trigger. I don't feel it belongs, for what its worth you apparently do. The balance of your comments seem confused.

To: Zoltan! who wrote (7712)	10/4/1998 7:58:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

LOSERS AND LIARS: HE SURE KNOWS HOW TO PICK 'EM By STEVE DUNLEAVY For THE NEW YORK POST nypostonline.com IF I ever went to the track with Bill Clinton, I would carefully watch what pony he was betting on. Then, with glee in my heart, I would promptly lay money on absolutely every nag that Clinton hadn't picked and know I would walk away with a sack full of money. As we all know, going to the track has little to do with luck, but it has everything to do with judgment. And if Clinton didn't have bad judgment, he wouldn't have any judgment at all. I mean, when it comes to picking people, he couldn't pick up gold in Fort Knox. I'm quite prepared to believe Monica was a victim of sorts, but what a vixen of victims she was. She beds a poor slob of a school teacher called Andy Bleiler and quickly calls his wife. I enjoyed it, Monica says. I lapped it up that he was so scared. And you pick this wacko for a sex slave? Even Monica's mother, Marsha, is about five cents in the dollar. She even warns her daughter that she might be killed like Mary Jo Kopechne. While lust has little conscience, if you're going to have an affair, at least pick someone whose lightbulb goes on when you hit the switch. If he can be forgiven for not picking the sharpest knife in the drawer when he ministered to Monica, let's look at his other tricks of tumbling down Niagara when it comes to judgment. First of all, let's look most recently at his top lawyer, David Kendall. Frankly, the only bar he should have passed was the one I drink in. It was he who brokered the deal that Clinton give grand jury testimony on television rather than walking into court like any other citizen. In one fell swoop Kendall made a good case of being a director for sex, lies and videotape. Now the next beauty. Kendall engineers the argument that Clinton should not be impeached because Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, wasn't impeached after he paid off a blackmailer who threatened to disclose Hamilton's sexual wanderings. Now just in case you forgot, that happened about 150 years ago. Some fine lawyers. Then he picked Ron Brown as Secretary of Commerce, who tragically died in a plane crash in Bosnia. Brown was about to face indictment for being less than honest. Ron Espy, secretary of Agriculture, who he proudly picked with needlepoint judgment, had to quit and is now facing indictments for corruption. With genius, he picked Janet Reno as attorney general, who history will remember as the crazy lady who wrote the blueprint for the tragedy in Waco. Reno would find it hard to be a pro bono lawyer for Legal Aid. And then we had James McDougal, the Clintons' first major business partner in the Whitewater scam, who was convicted as a crook and died in jail. McDougal's ex-wife Susan, who Clinton chose as a great Billy Boy pal, has already done 18 months and is looking at further time in the slammer after allegedly conning famous music conductor Zubin Mehta. He has James Carville as his minister of war launching tirade after tirade against the forces of good to defend Clinton's appalling record. Carville could play the lead role in another remake of The Day of the Jackal. He picks Dan Lasater as a great close friend and large campaign contributor. Jailed as a convicted drug dealer. And what about Susan Thomases, the lawyer who acted as the Cardinal Richelieu of the Clintonista kingdom? This otherwise brilliant lawyer couldn't remember the contents of 17 telephone calls and five hours of personal conversation with Hillary Clinton following the sad suicide of Vincent Foster. And then, of course, he picks Hazel O'Leary. She was a former Energy secretary who had to take a dive out of her professional window after evidence of massive extravagant world travel at taxpayers' expense. And, of course, there is Webster Hubbell, who was Hillary's former partner in the Rose Law Firm and was one of the top cops in the Justice Department - and he ends up in jail. His judgment goes all the way back to Gennifer Flowers, a nice woman who accommodated him in the boudoir but would eventually blow the whistle louder than a fire engine's siren. What is this guy's judgment all about? Where are Johnny Huang and Charlie Trie, architects of the Clinton funny-money scandal? Clinton's personal telephone directory must be very slim right now. It was fat in the days when he could call people who weren't dead, in jail or on the lam. And this is the Commander in Chief? Commander in Thief.